C. A. Ballentine

A. Pilat

2 cases1981–2000

M. G. Picher

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 16, 1981

Grievance allowed; construction project fell outside the Free Zone, entitling employees to travel allowance.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, claiming that employees working on the Petrosar project were entitled to a travel allowance.

The respondent employer argued the project fell within the 'Free Zone' where no allowance was payable, asserting a latent ambiguity in the collective agreement's boundary description.

The Board applied the test from Leitch Gold Mines, finding no latent ambiguity as the parties' intention to use specific roadways as boundaries was clear from the negotiating history.

The Board allowed the grievance, concluding the project was in Zone A and travel allowances were payable.

Local Union 1256 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Kel-Gor Ltd., 1981 CanLII 929

R. .I. Taylor

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

Ian C. A. Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 27, 1981

Disciplining employees for a concerted refusal to work voluntary overtime during a legal strike violates the Labour Relations Act.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing disciplinary letters to three transit drivers who refused to work voluntary overtime.

The refusal was part of a union-imposed ban on overtime during a legal strike position.

The Board held that a concerted refusal to work overtime constitutes a strike, and because the employees were in a legal strike position, their participation was a protected right under the Act.

The employer's disciplinary action amounted to prohibited discrimination and penalization for exercising a statutory right.

The employer was directed to remove the warning letters from the employees' files, but the union's application for consent to prosecute was denied.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1573 v. The Corporation of the City of Brampton, 1981 CanLII 852

V. Belleville

L. Rothstein

F. Tailor

E. L. Stringer, Q.C.

9 cases1980–1992

D. L. Brisbin

8 cases1980–1987

C. G. Paliare

2 cases1981–1981

R. O. MacDowell

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 13, 1981

Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by insisting on altering recognition clause to exclude related company.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by repudiating a memorandum of agreement.

The parties had resolved all outstanding issues and signed a memorandum subject to ratification.

Before ratification, the respondent acquired a related company and subsequently refused to ratify the agreement unless the union agreed to amend the recognition clause to explicitly exclude the employees of the newly acquired company.

The Board held that the respondent's insistence on altering the recognition clause to avoid the potential application of the related employer provisions of the Labour Relations Act was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and constituted a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Cybermedix Limited, 1981 CanLII 865

J. A. Ronson

G. Gail Brent

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 16, 1980

Unlawfully discharged employee's compensation reduced due to partial failure to mitigate damages by seeking trade-specific work.

The Board assessed compensation owed to an employee previously found to have been unlawfully discharged.

The respondent employer argued the employee failed to mitigate his damages by not seeking work in his specific trade as a spring maker.

The Board found the employee acted reasonably in seeking alternative work and attempting to start a business initially, but failed to take reasonable steps to find work in his trade during a subsequent four-month period.

Compensation for lost wages was reduced by the amount the employee likely could have earned during that four-month period, resulting in an award of $11,389.44 plus benefits and interest.

International Union, United Automobile. Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (U.A.W.) v. P. J. Wailbank Mfg. Company Ltd., 1980 CanLII 909

W. G. Phelps

8 cases1980–1994

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. Tier

P. M. Rusak

6 cases1980–1997

Peter Hart

Paul A. Niebergall

2 cases1980–1986

A. Colafranceschi

3 cases1980–1989

Ian C. A. Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 23, 1980

Representation vote ordered; working foreman's petition to terminate bargaining rights found voluntary despite supervisory role.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the statement of desire was involuntary because the applicant exercised supervisory functions, leading employees to perceive management involvement.

The Board found no actual management involvement and concluded that employees would likely view the applicant as acting in his own self-interest rather than on behalf of management.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the petition involuntary due to the applicant's perceived managerial authority.

Joseph Foley v. International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades et al., 1980 CanLII 749

Susan Bisset

2 cases1980–1996

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Robin B. Cumine, Q.C.

5 cases1980–1984

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

P. Thorup

James B. Noonan

17 cases1980–2000

H. M. Pollit

8 cases1980–1987

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 23, 1980

Complaint dismissed; minor strike authorization violations did not warrant a cease and desist order.

The complainant employer bargaining agency alleged that the respondent union violated section 134a(1) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to authorize a strike for all employees in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, specifically by continuing to supply workers for maintenance work.

The Board examined whether the work performed under various maintenance agreements constituted construction work or maintenance work.

The Board found that while most of the work was maintenance and thus outside the ICI sector, some minor new construction work was performed in violation of the Act.

However, given the union's reasonable efforts to comply and the complainant's members' inconsistent conduct, the Board declined to issue a cease and desist order and dismissed the complaint.

The Master Insulators' Association of Ontario Inc. v. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95, 1980 CanLII 863

R. O. MacDowell

C. G. Bourne

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 9, 1980

Dissenting opinion arguing that section 1(4) related employer provisions should not apply to the new business.

In a dissenting opinion, Board Member C. G. Bourne disagreed with the majority's application of section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to find a related employer relationship.

The dissenting member emphasized that the original partnership was dissolved due to financial failure, and the respondent merely managed a new business owned by his wife without transferring any assets, goodwill, or customer lists.

The dissent concluded that section 1(4) was not intended to capture such circumstances and would have dismissed the grievance.

The Ironworkers' District Council of Ontario v. William A Squire, 1980 CanLII 769

Tony Borg

Ted Wohl

3 cases1980–1981

John O'Donoghue

2 cases1980–1981

R. O. MacDowell

E. C. Went

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 9, 1980

Individual employees cannot apply under section 95(2) to determine their status if union and employer agree.

A group of registered nursing assistants (RNAs) applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of their employee status.

The employer and the union had previously agreed that the RNAs were employees covered by the collective agreement.

The Board held that section 95(2) is designed to resolve disputes between the immediate parties to the bargaining relationship (the employer and the union).

It is not available to individual employees to question their status when that status is not a matter of dispute between the employer and the trade union.

The application was dismissed.

Group of Employees v. Central Park Lodges of Canada, 1980 CanLII 781

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

R. W. Cosman

4 cases1980–1983

R. McCormick

M. Zigler

17 cases1980–2013

E. Ford

2 cases1980–1985

D. N. Corbett

7 cases1980–1994

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

Kevin M. Burkett

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 6, 1980

Preliminary motion to dismiss complaint denied; dependent contractor established prima facie case requiring full hearing.

The complainant, a dependent contractor operating a crane, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by requiring his employer to discharge him after denying him union membership.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, arguing that the complainant was not an employee covered by the collective agreement and therefore no prima facie case was established.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the complainant had made out a prima facie case that he was a dependent contractor and that the collective agreement was latently ambiguous regarding his inclusion in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the matter to be listed for a full hearing.

Brian Eric Dwight v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1980 CanLII 971

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 31, 1980

Employers' organization cannot grieve against employer under s. 112a, but may seek relief under s. 79.

The applicants, employers' organizations, referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers failed to remit industry fund contributions required by a provincial collective agreement.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including res judicata and lack of jurisdiction, arguing section 112a does not permit grievances between parties of like interest.

The Board agreed that section 112a only applies to disputes between opposing interests (employers vs. unions) and that recent amendments did not change this substantive limitation.

However, the Board held that the failure to pay industry fund dues constitutes a violation of section 134(2) of the Act, which makes the provincial agreement binding, and that the applicants could seek relief under the unfair labour practice provisions in section 79.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for continuation of the hearing.

Mechanical Contractors Association Ottawa and Mechanical Contractors Association Ontario v. J.G. Rivard Limited and Michel Rivard Plumbing Limited, 1980 CanLII 973

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

Ian C. A. Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 25, 1980

Union certified without representation vote as statement of desire found involuntary due to supervisory influence.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of field employees engaged in surveying operations.

The union filed membership evidence for both employees in the unit.

A statement of desire opposing the union was subsequently filed, signed by one bargaining unit employee and a supervisory party chief.

The Board found that the bargaining unit employee's decision to sign the statement was likely influenced by the supervisory party chief and concerns that management would become aware of his choice.

Consequently, the Board declined to direct a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant union.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. I. M. Pastushak Ltd., 1980 CanLII 963

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

J. A. Ronson

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 21, 1980

Grievance referral adjourned pending reconsideration of underlying certification decision; dissent argued for proceeding on merits.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the employer requested an adjournment pending the disposition of a request for reconsideration of a prior certification case involving the employer.

The majority of the Board granted the adjournment, noting that the reconsideration request went to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the grievance referral.

Board Member Ballentine dissented, arguing that the adjournment was contrary to the Board's policy of providing speedy resolutions for construction industry grievances and that the hearing should have proceeded on the merits.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. H. Kerr Construction Limited, 1980 CanLII 958

S. Wahl

9 cases1980–2000

Marc Lefebvre

R. O. MacDowell

C. G. Bourne

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 1980

Board declares insolvent unionized company and newly formed non-unionized company to be one employer.

The applicant union sought a declaration under sections 55 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Brant Erecting and Hoisting and Provincial Steel were a single employer or that a sale of business had occurred.

The key principal of the unionized Brant Erecting, which had become insolvent, established a new non-unionized company, Provincial Steel, through his wife to carry on the same business.

The Board found that the two entities carried on associated or related businesses under common control and direction, despite not operating simultaneously.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding Provincial Steel to the collective agreement, and found it unnecessary to decide the section 55 issue.

The Ironworkers' District Council of Ontario v. William A. Squire, 1980 CanLII 768

J. A. Ronson

George W. Adams

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 2, 1980

Complaint dismissed without a hearing for failing to allege a violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant filed a complaint under Section 79 of the Labour Relations Act against her employer, alleging she was improperly demoted and suspended for three days without pay.

The complaint did not allege any violation of the Act, such as demotion for trade union activity, nor did it allege the union failed to adequately represent her.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of its Rules of Procedure, finding that the complaint failed to make out a prima facie case for the remedy requested because a demotion without just cause does not by itself contravene the Act.

Eva Burt v. Thomas Product Co. Ltd, 1980 CanLII 868

W. J. McNaughton

30 cases1980–2000

E. Foote

B. P. Bellmore

4 cases1980–1994

T. G. Armstrong

Rory F. Egan

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 6, 1980

Union granted certification for separate municipal bargaining units; combined multi-city unit rejected.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent at clinics in Hamilton, Burlington, and London.

The Board found the applicant established its status as a trade union, dismissing objections regarding the sequence of its founding meeting and undated membership cards.

The Board rejected the applicant's request for a single combined bargaining unit covering all three municipalities, finding insufficient community of interest and no interchange of employees, and instead determined that three separate units were appropriate.

The Board granted a certificate for the Burlington unit and an interim certificate for the Hamilton unit pending the resolution of a disputed managerial exclusion, while appointing a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into disputed classifications at the London clinic.

Ontario Association of Weight Counsellors v. Weight Loss Inc., 1980 CanLII 890

P. M. Barkla

Kevin Corporon

2 cases1980–1983

I. H. Grisdale

H. E. Divine

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

D. A. Gendron

C. G. Riggs

17 cases1980–1998

R. O. MacDowell

C. G. Bourne

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 22, 1980

Mushroom farm employees are 'employed in agriculture' and excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of a mushroom farm.

The respondent employer argued that the employees were 'employed in agriculture' and thus excluded from The Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that although the mushroom farm operated much like a manufacturing facility with a highly controlled environment and factory-like conditions, the fundamental process was the natural growing of a crop.

Therefore, the employees were engaged in agriculture and excluded from the Act.

The application for certification was dismissed.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Wellington Mushroom Farm, 1980 CanLII 891

Robert A. Woodrow

J. Redshaw

5 cases1980–1985

G. McLeod

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 13, 1980

Application to terminate bargaining rights in the construction industry found timely; representation vote ordered.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union objected that the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had been appointed under the local agreement.

The Board found the application was timely with respect to the provincial agreement for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The Board also determined that recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act extended the union's bargaining rights province-wide by operation of law, and amended the bargaining unit accordingly.

A representation vote was ordered.

The Employees of Jan Peters Trucking and Excavating v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1980 CanLII 974

Philip J. Wolfenden

16 cases1980–2011

Martin Levinson

15 cases1980–1987

Ian C. A. Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 12, 1980

Employer's firm position against compulsory union dues check-off during first contract negotiations did not constitute bad faith bargaining.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement, specifically regarding the issue of union security.

The employer took a firm position against compulsory dues check-off, offering only voluntary check-off.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in rational and informed discussion and was entitled to take a firm position on union security.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the grounds that the employer's rigid stance on union security constituted surface bargaining.

United Steelworkers of America v. Cross Tube Products Inc., 1980 CanLII 944

W. Gnat

Roy C. Filion

42 cases1980–2017

Ian C. A. Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine